Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2025 OIC 31

Date : 2025-05-02 
OIC file number : 5823-03607 
Access request number : A-2023-03532

Summary

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under section 17 (safety of individuals), subsections 15(1) (national security) and 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence), 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all records regarding the work of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency.

The complainant also alleged that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the investigation, the complainant decided to limit the scope of the exemptions allegation to the application of paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) to withhold information on three specific pages of the responsive records.

The RCMP showed that it met the requirements of paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) and reasonably exercised its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information. The RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records, conceding that it did not task all record holders or use all relevant search terms.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the RCMP provide a new response to the complainant and give access to any records located by additional searches, unless access may be refused under a specific provision(s) the Act. The RCMP gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]        The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had improperly withheld information under section 17 (safety of individuals), subsections 15(1) (national security) and 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 16(2)(c) (facilitating the commission of an offence), 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for all records regarding the work of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency.

[2]        The complainant also alleged that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request.

[3]        Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

[4]        While the scope of the allegations into the reasonableness of the RCMP’s search remained unchanged, during the investigation, the complainant decided to limit the scope of the investigation to the application of paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) to withhold information on pages 34, 36 and 393 of the responsive records.

Investigation

[5]        When an institution withholds information under an exemption, it bears the burden of showing that refusing to grant access is justified.

Paragraph 21(1)(a): advice or recommendations

[6]        Paragraph 21(1)(a) allows institutions to refuse to disclose advice or recommendations developed by or for a government institution or a minister.

[7]        To qualify for exemption under paragraph 21(1)(a), the records that contain the information must have been created less than 20 years before the access request was made.

[8]        To claim this exemption, institutions must then show the following:

• The information is advice or recommendations.
• The information was developed by or for a government institution or minister.

[9]        When these requirements are met, institutions must then reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[10]      The information at issue includes portions of pages 34, 36 and 393, withheld concurrently under paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) all of which was created less than 20 years before the access request was made.

[11]      In their representations, the complainant suggested that the information withheld under paragraphs 21(1)(a) and (b) appears to be a description of actions that have already been taken, rather than a consideration of future planning or options, or the development of advice or recommendations. The complainant suggested that the assessment of the exemption must consider whether a reasonable person would think the author’s intention was to give advice or make recommendations

[12]      On pages 34 and 36, the RCMP withheld portions of a duplicate email exchanged between the Privy Council Office (PCO) and the RCMP. I am satisfied that the information consists of a recommendation made by employees of a government institution for another government institution.

[13]      With respect to page 393, one section of a chart outlining the timeline for Project Natterjack’s milestones is withheld. I am satisfied that a portion of the information withheld in the chart consists of a recommendation made by a government institution for another government institution. However, I am not convinced that the remainder of the information withheld in the chart is either advice or a recommendation.

[14]      As such, I conclude that the information withheld on pages 34 and 36, and a portion of the information withheld on page 393, meet the criteria of this exemption.

Did the institution reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information?

[15]      Since the information on pages 34, 36 and a portion of the information on page 393 meet the requirements of paragraph 21(1)(a), the RCMP was required to reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information. In doing so, the RCMP had to consider all the relevant factors for and against disclosure.

[16]      The RCMP does not have to provide a detailed analysis of each factor it considered and explain how it weighed one against the other. However, a blanket declaration that it had exercised its discretion and considered all relevant factors is not sufficient.

[17]      The RCMP explained that it balanced the right of access, the nature of the information withheld, the source of the information, the recommendations received during the processing of the request, and the need for the RCMP to safeguard its relationships with other government departments. It decided that the concerns and recommendations received regarding disclosure warranted the exemption of the information.

[18]      I conclude that the RCMP considered all relevant factors when it decided not to disclose the information. The exercise of discretion by the RCMP was therefore reasonable.

[19]      However, the remainder of the information on page 393 does not meet the criteria of the exemption. Since this information does not meet the requirements of 21(1)(a), the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) examined whether paragraph 21(1)(b) could be used to withhold this information.

Paragraph 21(1)(b): accounts of consultations or deliberations

[20]      Paragraph 21(1)(b) allows institutions to refuse to disclose accounts of consultations or deliberations in which government employees, ministers or members of a minister’s staff took part.

[21]      To qualify for exemption under paragraph 21(1)(b), the records that contain the information must have been created less than 20 years before the access request was made.

[22]      To claim this exemption, institutions must then show the following:

• The information is an account—that is, a report or a description.
• The account is of consultations or deliberations.
• At least one of an institution’s directors, officers or employees, a minister or a member of a minister’s staff was involved in the consultations or deliberations.

[23]      When these requirements are met, institutions must then reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[24]      As described above, the information exempted on page 393 consists of one section of a chart outlining Project Natterjack milestones, withheld under 21(1)(a) and (b) concurrently.

[25]      I am satisfied that the information withheld in the chart consists of a written account of consultations between employees of government institutions and that the information was created less than 20 years before the request was made.

[26]      I conclude that the information on page 393 meets the requirements of paragraph 21(1)(b).

Did the institution reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information?

[27]      Since the information on page 393 meets the requirements of paragraph 21(1)(b), the RCMP was required to reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information. In doing so, the RCMP had to consider all the relevant factors for and against disclosure.

[28]      The RCMP demonstrated that it balanced the right of access with the RCMP’s need to protect information. More specifically, the RCMP determined that its need to protect its relationship with other government departments when working on government matters and its decision-making deliberations was necessary, in this case. The RCMP exercised its discretion by disclosing other portions of the information from the chart.

[29]      I conclude that the RCMP considered all relevant factors when it decided not to disclose the information. The exercise of discretion by the RCMP was reasonable.

[30]      In light of the above, I conclude that the information withheld on pages 34, 36 and 393, meets the requirements for exemption pursuant to paragraphs 21(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Act.

Reasonable Search

[31]      The RCMP was required to conduct a reasonable search for records that fall within the scope of the access request—that is, one or more experienced employees, knowledgeable in the subject matter of the request, must have made reasonable efforts to identify and locate all records reasonably related to the request.

[32]      A reasonable search involves a level of effort that would be expected of any fair, sensible person tasked with searching for responsive records where they are likely to be stored.

[33]      This search does not have to be perfect. An institution is therefore not required to prove with absolute certainty that further records do not exist. Institutions must however be able to show that they took reasonable steps to identify and locate responsive records.

Did the institution conduct a reasonable search for records?

[34]      The complainant alleged that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records and that certain records were missing from the response provided to them. Specifically, the complainant alleged:

• The response was missing email communications that were provided to the complainant by another government institution for a separate access request.
• The records were primarily emails and email attachments and did not include meeting minutes, briefings or handwritten notes.
• It was not clear whether the attachments in numerous email communications were provided.

[35]      During the investigation, the OIC reviewed information pertaining to the program areas that were tasked with the search to determine if they had fulfilled their obligations under the Act to identify records relevant to the request. I am satisfied that the RCMP tasked the program areas that were knowledgeable about the subject matter of the request and would reasonably be expected to hold responsive records.

[36]      However, the investigation determined that the searches conducted by the program areas were incomplete. The RCMP conceded that, due to an oversight, one program area did not task all record holders. In addition, it explained that some program areas did not use all relevant search terms when conducting their original searches for records.

[37]      In its representations, the RCMP advised the OIC that the program areas were conducting additional searches for records and the RCMP would issue a new response to the complainant. To date, the RCMP has not provided a new response to the complainant.

[38]      I conclude that the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records.

Outcome

[39]      The complaint is well founded because the RCMP did not conduct a reasonable search for records.

Orders

I order the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to:

1. Provide a new response to the complainant no later than the 60th business day following receipt of the final report;
2. Give access to any responsive records that may be located by the RCMP’s additional searches, unless access to them, or to part of them, may be refused under a specific provision(s) of Part 1 of the Act. When this is the case, name the provision(s).

Initial report and notice from institution

On March 13, 2025, I issued my initial report to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness setting out my orders.

On April 11, 2025, the Director General of the Access to Information and Privacy Branch gave me notice that the Minister would be implementing the orders.

Review by Federal Court

When an allegation in a complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (d.1) or (e) of the Act, the complainant has the right to apply to the Federal Court for a review. When the Information Commissioner makes an order(s), the institution also has the right to apply for a review. Whoever applies for a review must do so within 35 business days after the date of this report and serve a copy of the application for review to the relevant parties, as per section 43. If no one applies for a review by this deadline, the order(s) takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this report.